Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#131

Post by michaelmrose »

TimJYoung wrote: post #77
wazoox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Linux and most free software projects allow donations. I even donated to projects I don't actually use, like FreeBSD. I donated money to many free software projects, Ardour, Mozilla, LibreOffice, OpenBSD, etc. This is clearly a false dichotomy.

Relying on the good will of others does not work , period. The fact that it works sometimes is not something that one can use as the reason to quit their job and start an "endeavor" (you can't really call it a business). Can we please dispense with this notion and start realizing one simple fact: people will typically only pay for something if you make them pay.

In this house I have 2 tablets 2 phones 1 router 1 laptop 2 desktops all running linux it appears to be working for me. This isn't to say that more money for creators wouldn't benefit everyone.

Re: On paying for software

#132

Post by michaelmrose »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #71
wazoox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Linux and most free software projects allow donations. I even donated to projects I don't actually use, like FreeBSD. I donated money to many free software projects, Ardour, Mozilla, LibreOffice, OpenBSD, etc. This is clearly a false dichotomy.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

"Open source, on the other hand, is like trying to shave with a razor blade with no handle. It's a hard sell to get people to donate to projects that they know are going to cut them at some point."

This sounds whiny and more importantly it isn't true its hard to get people to pay for things that they can have for free full stop.

Don't make things more complicated than they are.

Re: On paying for software

#133

Post by cup-of-tea »

afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

Re: On paying for software

#134

Post by cesarb »

decebalus1 wrote: post #119
carapace wrote: post #115

I've always felt that charging money for software is dumb. I, as a programmer, think about saying to other people that they cannot use a piece of software that is already written unless they give me money, is a damn ridiculous idea. Software is wealth. If I had a gold coin that had the property that I could give it to you and still have it, and that both coins would increase in value when I did, and that you and I bo…

> doge and qat I'm not a native English speaker. What are those?

Doge is a common Internet mispronouncing of "dog" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_%28meme%29), so I'm guessing that the other one is likewise for "cat".

Re: On paying for software

#135

Post by jackweirdy »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #133
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

A donation doesn’t reasonably entitle you to expect anything. A purchase does

Re: On paying for software

#136

Post by jcrben »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #133
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

If you donate, there's no guarantee that everyone else is donating. So you end up supporting the free riders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem). Which is a disincentive to donate.

Re: On paying for software

#137

Post by michaelmrose »

greysteil wrote: post #91
ttoinou wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to copyright law we don't need to hide our codebases in order to charge for our work. I don't understand that part ?

Before patents, copyright law, and all that, secrecy was the only way to stop people copying your stuff. That was kinda crappy, and people went to great lengths to obfuscate their IP, expending lots of effort on something that had no benefit for their customers / the world. Intellectual property law changed that - it made it possible for people to openly disclose their inventions whilst maintaining control of them (n…

Citation needed.

Re: On paying for software

#138

Post by michaelmrose »

ttoinou wrote: post #120
greysteil wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before patents, copyright law, and all that, secrecy was the only way to stop people copying your stuff. That was kinda crappy, and people went to great lengths to obfuscate their IP, expending lots of effort on something that had no benefit for their customers / the world. Intellectual property law changed that - it made it possible for people to openly disclose their inventions whilst maintaining control of them (n…

How is copyright / patents / IP making companies' code bases open to public or it's secrecy is not as guarded as before (as implied by your quote) ?

Especially since copyright predates software or you know computers.

Re: On paying for software

#139

Post by voidwtf »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #133
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

With the exception of bounties, donations do not translate to fixing an obscure big or adding a feature. I’ve even had some features which I’ve implemented fail to make it into the upstream because it’s not the way the maintainer(s) would have implemented it, despite it being highly requested and following their development patterns as much as possible.

The attitude in the opensource community about pull requests and donations is sometimes frustrating when you realize that a contribution you’ve made may never benefit the community.

Re: On paying for software

#140

Post by bjpbakker »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #71
wazoox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Linux and most free software projects allow donations. I even donated to projects I don't actually use, like FreeBSD. I donated money to many free software projects, Ardour, Mozilla, LibreOffice, OpenBSD, etc. This is clearly a false dichotomy.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

> The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users

This is as much true as it is for developers of proprietary software.

There are many examples on both sides that make your statement false, also as many to make it true.

Post reply on HN